As Christie goes up against Bush and Rubio, both of whom are very strong on the second amendment, he has sudden found himself on a road to Damascus and seen the light.

On Wednesday, however, he credited his experience as a federal prosecutor for the shift. “I learned the difference, and I learned what the limitations are of these laws that people are talking about and how they much, much more greatly infringe on law-abiding citizens than they do anything to prevent crime,” Christie said. “Having learned that, my position’s changed.”

If Christie being a federal prosecutor changed his position, I wonder why he signed legislation in 2013 that banned people in New Jersey from owning guns if they were on a terror watch list, including the no-fly list.

At the time, Christie said this:

As a former federal prosecutor, I understand the obligation of government to ensure the safety and security of its people,” the governor said in a bill-signing statement.

He added, “I urge Congress to take steps to ensure that law-abiding American citizens are never swept into these databases.”

Got it? Chris Christie supported gun control because he was a federal prosecutor. Now he opposes gun control because he was a federal prosecutor. Likewise, he was willing just three years ago to sign a law to deny people their constitutional right claiming the government just needed better bureaucrats.

But he is willing to throw it all away now to be elected.

Should that happen, not that it will, how long before he again supports gun control?